I know that is the position, but I think we'll have to have a friendly disagreement about it. :) Of course all sides interpret and in some cases it seems like a real "stretch" to another side, but when I look at this as a big picture, the pattern I see is that the Reformed say the totality of scriptures "trump" the verse here or there that doesn't seem to fit at face value, whereas, the Apostolics seem to hold that extra-scriptural Tradition "trumps" all scripture, regardless of whether the passage is in the majority or minority as compared to the totality of scripture. That is, the Bible is not allowed to defend itself. Even if there were ten verses that strongly supported a point, they would all be interpreted away if they disagreed (at face value) with what the Church teaches today.
“Even if there were ten verses that strongly supported a point, they would all be interpreted away if they disagreed (at face value) with what the Church teaches today.”
FK, what The Church teaches dogmatically today is what it taught from the beginning. Today, 1800 years ago, it makes no difference. Its the same Faith.
FK, surely you don’t believe that the Bible is some sort of self defining, self authenticating, self created “something” which presides over mankind? That’s what Mohammedans believe about the Koran, FK. Our salvation is from The Word Who became Flesh, not the word a bunch of Greek bishops put together 1700 years ago.